RIGHT TO LIFE AND CHOICE

INTRODUCTION
From the moment we are born, to the moment we die, we are governed by the laws and regulations,
which allow a person live a safe and just life. For the regulation of these laws, constitution gives
its citizens some rights. The basic or the natural right of any human being is the right to life, the
one right which is common to all person, no matter the age or nationality or gender. Right to Life
is a moral principle which is based on the fact that a human being is entitled to life and should not
be killed by any other human being. And this natural right cant be taken from any individual by
the State or by any person, under any circumstances. The right to life protects individuals from
practices like euthanasia, capital punishments, war, abortion etc. In medical ethics, the bread and
butter controversies arise because of abortion and euthanasia, because they essentially are against
the right to life and hence illegal practice in majority of countries across the globe.

EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia, derived from two Greek words- Eu meaning good and Thanatos meaning death
literally meaning, a good death and is generally understood as mercy killing, where the life is
taken for the sake of the person whose life it is because he or she is suffering from an incurable
painful disease or is in an irreversible coma and is usually done by administration of combination
of drugs which numb the pain and eventually end life and is done under medical supervision.
There are three types of categories of euthanasia- Voluntary Euthanasia where patient consents
for the legal administration of life ending drugs and is legal in some countries like Netherlands,
Canada, Belgium, etc.; Involuntary Euthanasia where the patient cant consent for the
administration of such drugs, ex. people in coma and newborn babies with terminal diseases and
this is illegal in all countries; Non Voluntary Euthanasia which is considered to be murder in all
the countries and is illegal.
There have been arguments about legalization of Euthanasia all across the globe and is one of the
most researched topics in bioethics. Against the legalization remains the points of right to life
understood as no one, including yourself, can take your life; of Bible which says that God has the
right to give and take life and to take someones life is to assume the role of God. According to
some religions, human life has sanctity and deserves respect and to take that life is against that
respect. According to Kantian Moral Ethics, any man or woman cant have the power to destroy
his life. It is not in his hands to take his or someones life. For the legalization of euthanasia are
the points of quality of life, right to life understood in different terms and right to choose.

1
EUTHANASIA AND THE RIGHT TO CHOICE
Euthanasia is killing off a human being and this is essentially taking someones life which is not
yours. It is suicide under more severe and painful conditions.
Ethical and practical arguments support the people who wish to end their lives peacefully and
suffer a little less.
According to the ethical arguments it is the right to choose for the person who is suffering from
a pain and disease which has no cure and would surely result in death sooner or later, it is their
right to choose what to do with their bodies and they should be able to do this with dignity. This
argument put forward the point that life should continue as long as the person feels it is worth
living. Because it is better to end their life than to live with intolerable pain where the quality of
life is almost negligible.
Practical Argument argues the fact that, illegal assisted suicide are common worldwide and its
better for the doctors and the patients to have it legalized and under supervision. This would help
the government in regulating the practice of euthanasia properly so as this is not abused. In medical
conditions, euthanasia prevails but under different names. For ex, DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) is a
document signed by the patient where he requests to stop the treatment if his heart stops beating.
This comes under Passive Euthanasia because doctors are not giving him the treatment which
could save him on his orders. Another controversial debate is in the case of palliative sedation. In
some cases, like burnt victims, patients are put to sleep with help of sedative treatments to reduce
the amount of suffering. Although this doesnt kill the patient but this has the risk of speeding up
the process of death and thus is termed as active euthanasia.
When considering the arguments given to stop the legalization of euthanasia, religious arguments
and medical ethics come to the mark.
Religious argument puts forward the point that every humans life is sacred and is a creation of
God. Only God should decide when a human life ends. Therefore, by committing the act of
euthanasia, one goes against the will of the God. Non-religious people believe that, by taking
someones life, you are devaluing it.
Medical ethics argument states the fact that, euthanasia violates the basic and the most important
code of ethics Obligation to respect human life. This means, no matter the decision of the patient,
doctor has to respect the decision. And daily exposure to death and killing (because of patients
wish) could turn a doctor into an uncompassionate doctor while dealing with children, elderly or
terminally ill patients.

2
ABORTION
Abortion is the term which refers to deliberate termination of pregnancy before it completes its
full term of 39-40 weeks. This is termed as induced abortion or miscarriage or termination of
pregnancy. If the foetus is capable to live outside the womb on its own, and is then aborted then it
is termed as late termination of pregnancy.
Indian laws regarding abortion have been strict since the increased number of cases of female
foeticide across the nation and the declining sex ratio. To overcome this, Indian Penal Code, in
1860, along with British Law, declared induced abortion as illegal. Doctors or nurses
(qualified/unqualified) who practice abortion without giving the proof of the risk to the life to
either the mother or the child is likely to be subjected to imprisonment for upto three years or fined
or both and women who undergo abortion who dont have the proof of a legal abortion could be
imprisoned for upto 7 years. The only exception was when abortion was induced in order to save
the life of the woman.
ABORTION AND THE RIGHT TO LIFE
Abortion is the most common infringement of the right to life because abortion is terminating the
formation of a child.
There are arguments that support abortion and arguments that dont support.
The arguments that are against abortion include since life beings at conception, termination is a
sin and is essentially a cold blooded murder. This disrupts the sanctity of life. No society allows
killing of an unborn child without punishment. An abortion can result in medical complications,
stress and health issues later in life Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception.
Arguments which strengthen the case for abortion includes- before the foetus is 6 weeks old, it
cannot exist independently without mother and is dependent of mothers health and is hence not
regarded as any separate entity. In the case of rape or incest, if the victim gets pregnant, she should
have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body. The ability of a woman to have control
of her body is critical to civil rights. Teenage rape victims who become mothers have grim
prospects for the future. This could result in poor health conditions, if they are not prepared to have
a child, they would leave school, would despise their child because it would remind them of the
things they might want to forget and this despise could be bad for the psyche of the child. He/she
would not be loved and no child should be brought in this world if there is no sufficient love.
Abortion is not only an internal surgery or administration of drugs which could terminate the
pregnancy but is also a mental, social, psychological and physical change a person has to endure.
The maternal feelings start from the very moment when you realize that there is a person growing
inside you and who is dependent on you for next few months. Therefore the decision to end that
life, is traumatic and stressful but also essential at times when the lives of either or both is in
danger,

3
CONCLUSION
The right to life and the right to choice should be given to every person from their birth because it
is essential. The State is right in enforcing the laws strictly so as there are no malpractice which
could take away the fundamental rights of a person. But under certain circumstances, with adequate
proof and full medical checkup and history, abortion and euthanasia can be legalized because, in
the end, it is the person who has to decide suffering the most in both the cases. It is their right to
life. Person who chooses to take euthanasia, is giving up his right to life because of the
immeasurable pain. He/she exercises the right to choice by deciding to take those drugs under
medical supervision.
The lady who decides to undergo abortion, decided the best of her and her child and take the right
to life from a dependent life form. And she also has the right to choice because, in the end, it is her
body and she has to live with the consequences of her choices later. Although abortion effects the
capability of the uterus and hampers it, it is better than raising a child without love.
The ethical dilemma surrounding the right to life and choice of these two issues is limitless because
the correct answer depends on the specific case and changes according to the situation. To make
the changes in the already existing constitution, and to legalize abortion and euthanasia would
mean that a new set of rules to be made to avoid any kind of abuse of these rights. They are the
fundamental rights of a person and he shall have it!